The concept of the Clash of Civilizations has no basis in logic. I do not think any clash such as may escalate into a violent confrontation between Islam and the West is at all imminent.
My main contention is that Islam, as a religion, does not pose a challenge to Western civilization. Ideologically, it favours peaceful persuasion. Confrontation in Islam is only to fend off aggression and not to attack supposed enemies. Any talk of a violent clash between the two is based wholly on speculation: it will never become a reality. The entire theory rests evidently on the actions taken by certain Muslim extremists, such as those of September 11, 2001. But it is too far-fetched to term this a clash between civilizations. The events of September 11 and other such events are, in reality, an expression of the frustration of certain over-emotional Muslims who seek to justify their actions under the banner of Islam.
This clash and confrontation which take place in modern times are being perpetrated not by Muslim governments, but by Muslim individuals. This fact likewise refutes the above theory. For war in Islam is a state affair, and that too when it is openly declared to be such. That is why guerrilla or proxy wars are totally abhorrent to Islam, having no sanction in religion. It would be true to say that the clash of the West is with the Muslim terrorist groups and not with Islamic civilization.
What is called ‘Islamic terrorism’ has nothing to do with Islam. It is, in essence, a political phenomenon of exploitation by certain extremist groups. No movement can be truly Islamic just by applying an Islamic label to it.
There is another, more strategic aspect to this matter. Given America’s need for an ‘enemy’ for its national progress, it will require a real enemy. Such politics cannot succeed on the basis of a powerless imaginary demon. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was cast in the role of the ‘real enemy.’ This policy might have been effective in that instance. But now America has no real enemy in a practical sense. Therefore, the so-called Cold War philosophy is no longer feasible.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, if America had really required an enemy to serve its national interest, it could have chosen China for this purpose. But, as we all know, America established friendship with China by ceasing all rivalry or hostility. This shows that even if the concept of the presence of an enemy existed in the 20th century, it has outlived its usefulness in the 21st century.
In the post-cold war period, Samuel Huntington wrote a book called “The Clash of Civilizations,” in which he claims that such a face-off would escalate to the dimensions of a Third World War. Its message alerts the West to the necessity to prepare for this coming war.
Those who subscribe to Samuel Huntington’s logic hold that, on September 11, when a number of over-zealous Muslim youths hijacked four American planes and crashed them into the buildings at New York and Washington, this was the signal for the beginning of this civilization clash. But I cannot agree with this. To my way of thinking, the incident of September 11 was the isolated and individual reaction of unsound minds. It had nothing to do with a clash of two civilizations. Such a clash would have to be a well-considered action of the two groups, rather than a solitary kamikaze initiative. This may, of course, be sensational news for the media, but it cannot be said to be the sign of a clash of two civilizations.
Those who favour this highly unrealistic conjecture tend to forget the reality that, after the Second World War, there have been many such occasions when the great powers of the world could have used atomic weapons to precipitate a Third World War. But this never happened. America did not drop an atom bomb on Vietnam to win the battle. In Afghanistan, Russia never used atomic weapons to achieve a military victory. Both the super powers accepted defeat and refrained from using atomic armaments, in spite of storing such weapons in great quantities.
The reason is that any such horrendous event takes place only once in human history. An atom bomb too, could be dropped only once, and that has already been done. Hiroshima put a full stop to the use of atomic weapons. It was not a comma, as has been demonstrated by the events of the last sixty years.
Nations possessing these weapons hold that they serve as atomic deterrents against any possible enemy, but the truth is that they have lost their war-deterrent value.
It is an accepted fact that the military use of nuclear weapons is an extremely disastrous boomerang-like game. This is enough to tell us that no atomic war will take place in the world. For a nation can be an enemy of another nation, but it cannot be its own enemy.
Samuel Huntington’s book can be summed up thus: the rivalry of these super powers is about to re-emerge in the form of a clash of civilizations. But as a serious proposition this is untenable. Even during the cold war period, the actual clash was one of material interests. Friction between nations in the post-cold war period is also due to the same clash of material interests. The military engagement of two civilizations is an unreal concept, for our civilization is based on ideas and values, on the strength of which we may engage in peaceful dialogues—not military confrontations.
The world has, indeed, entered the age of peaceful dialogues. The nuclear deterrent has, in reality, become a war deterrent. The end of the 20th century saw the end of violent confrontations. The 21st century is a new era of human history when man, for the first time is able, in the real sense of the expression, to lead his life in peaceful circumstances.
